Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay
An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation
Introduction
The NRC Study Tasks
Tracking and Accounting
Adaptive Management
Strategies for Meeting Goals
Two-Year Milestones
Summary
Photo credit: Ben Schumin, Wikimedia Commons
Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals
in the Chesapeake Bay
An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation
Recovery of the Chesapeake Bay
In recent years, the Chesapeake Bay Program has taken important steps
from the ecosystem disruption
to enhance the accountability of its partner jurisdictions, for example by
caused by excess nutrient and
establishing two-year milestones for progress. However, numerous issues
sediment inputs, primarily
affect the consistency and accuracy of the tracking and accounting of
from agriculture, urban runoff,
nutrient reduction practices. Opportunities exist to improve tracking and
wastewater, and air pollution,
accounting and to support applications of adaptive management. Because
will require profound changes in
public support is vital for sustaining the program, it is important to help the
the management of resources
public understand lag times and uncertainties associated with water quality
in the Bay watershed.
improvements and to develop program strategies to better quantity them.
Introduction
In July 2009, the EPA requested that the National Research Council (NRC) evaluate and provide advice on the
Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP’s) nutrient reduction program and strategy. The NRC formed a committee of nine
volunteers that was charged to address the statement of task questions below. The committee met four times in
2009–2010 and released its report in May 2011. The conclusions highlighted here reflect the consensus findings of the
committee.
Statement of Task
Tracking and Accountability
1. Does tracking of nutrient and sediment pollution best management practices appear to be reliable, accurate,
and consistent?
2. What tracking and accounting efforts appear to be working, and not working, within each jurisdiction,
including federal program implementation and funding? How can the system be strategically improved to
address the gaps?
3. How do these gaps and inconsistencies appear to impact reported program results?
Milestones
4. Is the two-year milestone strategy, and its level of implementation, likely to result in achieving the
CBP nutrient and sediment reduction goals for this milestone period?
5. Have each of the jurisdictions and the federal agencies developed appropriate adaptive management
strategies to ensure that CBP nutrient and sediment reduction goals will be met?
6. What improvements can be made to the development, implementation, and accounting of the
strategies to ensure achieving the goals?
Tracking and Accounting
Summary
ƒƒ Tracking nutrient and sediment control practices is of paramount
importance because the CBP relies upon the data to estimate
current and future loads.
ƒƒ Numerous issues affect accuracy and consistency of tracking and
accounting (e.g., not all practices tracked in all jurisdictions; limited
verification, particularly for BMP maintenance; voluntary practices
rarely tracked).
ƒƒ Tracking and accounting approaches (and their associated accuracy)
vary across the Bay jurisdictions. Third-party auditing would be
necessary to ensure reliability and accuracy of the state and local
data.
ƒƒ The committee was unable to quantify the magnitude or likely
direction of error caused by reporting issues because some tracking
issues lead to under-accounting and others to over-accounting.
ƒƒ CBP and the Bay jurisdictions are making strides toward improved
reporting, but states and localities are struggling with the large task
and limited resources.
Sources of nitrogen to the Chesapeake Bay
Sources of phosphorus to the Chesapeake Bay
Strategies to Improve Tracking and
Accounting
ƒƒ A consolidated regional BMP program to increase geo-referencing
and tracking voluntary practices.
ƒƒ Targeted monitoring programs in subwatersheds to refine BMP
efficiency estimates.
ƒƒ Additional EPA guidance on the optimal extent of field verification in
relation to expected benefits.
ƒƒ More timely mechanisms for reporting and synthesizing progress.
With electronic reporting, some states wait 9+ months for a
summary of BMP implementation progress.
Sources of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay
NOTES: Based on model simulations using the Watershed Model Phase 4.3 and the Airshed Model, considering land
use and pollution control measures in place as of 2007. The data reflects the average output when simulated over
14 years of hydrologic record and does not include loads from the ocean or tidal shoreline erosion. Wastewater
loads are based on measured discharges.
SOURCE: CBP. 2010.
Two-Year Milestones
Strategy
ƒƒ The two-year milestone strategy is an improvement on past strategies because it commits
jurisdictions to tangible, near‑term implementation goals and improves accountability. The
milestone strategy also specifies contingencies for mid‑course corrections.
ƒƒ However, the strategy does not guarantee goals will be met, and the consequences for
nonattainment are unclear.
ƒƒ Without timely updates and synthesis of progress, most jurisdictions lack data necessary to
make appropriate mid-course corrections.
Implementation
ƒƒ The first milestone represents
~21–22% of total targeted N and
P reductions, and jurisdictions
reported mixed progress (based
on July 2009+ reporting).
ƒƒ However, the data were
insufficient to meaningfully
evaluate implementation
progress, because N and P load
reduction data associated with
the practices implemented were
not available.
ƒƒ The first milestone will likely be
the easiest to achieve because
the jurisdictions are logically
seizing the low-hanging fruit, and
some jurisdictions are counting
previously uncounted practices.
Photo credit (bottom): chelle, morgueFile.com
Integration of the goals and strategies used in the CBP, including two‑year
milestones and the TMDL accountability framework.
Adaptive Management
Assessment
1
IdentifyÊwater
qualityÊgoal
6
5
ExploreÊuncertainties
IdentifyÊmanagement
alternatives
PredictÊoutcomes
SelectÊalternative(s)
DescribeÊexpectedÊoutcomes
DevelopÊmonitoringÊplan
DevelopÊevaluationÊplan
ContinueÊor
adapt
Implement
alternative(s)
Implement
evaluationÊplan
3
Implement
monitoring
plan
4
Stylized adaptive management strategy, with the size of the box
proportional to the amount of effort required. The planning and
monitoring steps (Steps 2 and 4) typically require the greatest
attention for successful adaptive management.
2
ƒƒ Adaptive management represents a strategy for moving forward despite
uncertainty through targeted management tests, deliberate monitoring
programs, and mechanisms to incorporate learning to improve future
decisions.
ƒƒ Neither the EPA nor the jurisdictions exhibit a clear understanding of
adaptive management and how it might be applied in pursuit of water
quality goals. The two-year milestone strategy is best characterized as a
trial-and-error process, in which learning is serendipitous rather than an
explicit objective.
Elements for Successful Adaptive Management
ƒƒ Careful assessment of uncertainties relevant to decision making. However,
the CBP has not fully analyzed uncertainties inherent in nutrient and
sediment reduction programs.
ƒƒ Deliberate monitoring efforts designed to address key uncertainties
associated with selected management alternatives.
ƒƒ Additional federal actions that could support adaptive management in
the CBP:
–– Federal adaptive management guidance and examples,
–– Modifications to the federal accountability framework, with explicit
language that failures resulting from genuine adaptive management
efforts will not be penalized, and
–– Flexibility in regulatory and organizational structure, including
the TMDL.
Strategies for Meeting Goals
ƒƒ Success in meeting CBP goals will require attention
to the consequences of future population levels,
development, agricultural production, and climate
dynamics in the Bay watershed.
ƒƒ Helping the public understand lag times and
uncertainties associated with water quality
improvements and developing program strategies
to quantify them are vital to sustaining public
support for the program, especially if near-term
Bay response does not meet expectations.
ƒƒ Establishing a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory
would ensure that the CBP has access to a suite
of models at the state of the art and could help
build credibility with the scientific, engineering,
and management communities and better integrate
modeling and monitoring.
To reach the long-term (2025) nutrient and sediment
load reduction goals, Bay jurisdictions and the federal
government will need to consider a wide range of
possible strategies, including some that are receiving
little, if any, consideration today. The committee
identified potential strategies that are not being
implemented to their full potential or that may have
substantial, unrealized potential in the Bay watershed.
These include:
Agriculture
ƒƒ Improved and innovative manure management
ƒƒ Incentive-based approaches and alternative
regulatory models
Urban
ƒƒ Regulatory models that address stormwater,
growth and development, and residential fertilizer
use.
ƒƒ Enhanced individual responsibility (e.g., lowimpact design, residential stormwater controls,
maintaining septic systems, changing diets).
Cross Cutting
ƒƒ Additional air pollution controls on NOx and
agricultural ammonia emissions.
Age of groundwater draining to the Chesapeake Bay
SOURCE: Phillips and Lindsey (2003).
Summary
ƒƒ Reaching long-term load reduction goals will require substantial
commitment and some level of sacrifice from those who live and work
in the watershed.
ƒƒ The CBP has taken important steps toward improving the pace
of implementation and accountability by establishing the two-year
milestones.
ƒƒ However, issues affect the consistency and accuracy of tracking and
accounting of practices.
ƒƒ Successful applications of adaptive management will benefit from
additional guidance and flexibility.
ƒƒ To reach the long-term CBP goals, Bay partners will likely need to
consider innovative strategies, including some that are receiving little
attention today.
ƒƒ Quantifying and communicating lag times associated with nutrient
legacy effects will be essential to sustain public support.
The full report is available for downloading from
the National Academies Press, www.nap.edu.
SOURCE: CBP (2008)
Committee on the Evaluation of Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation for Nutrient Reduction to Improve Water
Quality: KENNETH H. RECKHOW (Chair), RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; PATRICIA E. NORRIS (Vice Chair),
Michigan State University, East Lansing; RICHARD J. BUDELL, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee;
DOMINIC M. DI TORO, University of Delaware, Newark; JAMES N. GALLOWAY, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; HOLLY
GREENING, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida; ANDREW N. SHARPLEY, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; ADEL
SHIRMOHAMMADI, University of Maryland, College Park; PAUL E. STACEY, Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Durham, New
Hampshire. NRC Water Science and Technology Board Staff: STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Study Director; MICHAEL J. STOEVER,
Research Associate